eowyn
01-25-2007, 02:15 PM
Hi everyone!
I wrote this essay for a POLS class last term .. and I thought it might make an interesting debate?
Basically, the question is discussing the Supreme Court's ability to overturn its own decisions and decisions of other government branches. So, who really decides? Us, in the democratic show of voting or unelected public elites such as the judges. And by elites, I mean : White, upper class, ivy league education etc.
The Mass Implications of Judicial Review
Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to rectify the disparity between existing legislation and current public ethics in favor of the masses . Hamilton’s dream of hindering extraneous legislative rules has expanded to allow for changes in the personal philosophies of the nation as it advances towards a more modernistic view of the world . The concept solidified in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and allowed the Justices to reform nationwide law regarding elective abortions to fit the strength of the women’s movement in Roe v. Wade . The concurrent case of School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp demonstrates how judicial review has allowed the masses the freedom of religion in their education per demand . The ability of the Supreme Court to force a reflection of the nation’s values in the legislation gives them a great strength in their battle over the other two branches, as Bush v. Gore illustrates.
In the midst of a cultural movement which advocated the individuality of women, stari decisis offered no solution to Roe v. Wade, argued Sarah Weddington, as the justices repeatedly asked her to concede . Weddington, herself, understood the rigidity of Texas abortion legislation . Roe v. Wade framed abortion as an elective medical procedure, depending on individual decision rather than medical necessity . The American woman, rebelling against her mother’s housewife status, took control of her sexuality . The Court, responding to this idea, forced the states to adopt a more permissive view of abortion . The case faced heavy contention, validating Justice Holmes’ description of the Court . The Executive office, particularly President Reagan, used the power to appoint candidates to the Court while Congress attempted to legislatively nullify Roe’s significance . Neither venue proved successful, speaking to the strength of statues enacted in continuation of the personal policies of the people .
The case School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp argued to expand the ability of the educational system to provide what Justice Black deemed a necessary quality of theological neutrality . Schempp argued that the use of the Bible as an introduction to each school day provided an exclusively Messiah based Christianity. The Court’s ruling prohibited the certain shame of a member of a religion not affiliated with Christianity in a governmental context. The Forefathers’ bifurcated intent allowed individuals to feel comfortable independently selecting and practicing a religion. The importance of this ruling lies in the fact that although much of the nation’s government is composed of members of Judeo-Christian theology, the current trend is towards more individualistic and non-European forms of religion. This ruling compelled the school districts in this and resulting cases to mirror the nation’s general philosophy of free and open religion in almost every government context.
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court inappropriately used the traditionally mass-oriented concept of judicial review to overrun mass opinion and affirm their position of power in American society. Each candidate concentrated on Florida which determined Governor Bush’s victory with less than 1% of the popular vote. The Court was asked to decide on the constitutionality of a prior state ruling. The implications of this ruling gave the Court the opportunity to declare nationally the power they held through electing a president for the masses. The popular vote representing America’s voice, granted Vice President Al Gore the victory. However, in a flawed electoral system, a man other than the choice of most Americans garnered the electoral votes. This expression of personal preference as well as clues given by PIPA data should have prohibited the action of the Court. The Supreme Court overruled the masses’ opinion in a case not pertaining to personal ethics conflicting with antique statues.
I viewed the Supreme Court as an impregnable institution with both honor and rigidity. Now I see the Supreme Court as a more flexible institution which uses judicial review as a means to serve the American people. I do believe that in the same manner that the Supreme Court serves to amend legislation to prevent a hyper-conservative movement, the Court does a disservice to another group of individuals who do not feel that the Court’s decisions accurately reflect their philosophical standings. I feel that the Court has given me certain rights and privileges which I did not ask for nor desire. But it seems fitting that I do not feel represented by a group of individuals who, from the first moment, were designed by men such as Hamilton to live above the people. God bless America.
I wrote this essay for a POLS class last term .. and I thought it might make an interesting debate?
Basically, the question is discussing the Supreme Court's ability to overturn its own decisions and decisions of other government branches. So, who really decides? Us, in the democratic show of voting or unelected public elites such as the judges. And by elites, I mean : White, upper class, ivy league education etc.
The Mass Implications of Judicial Review
Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to rectify the disparity between existing legislation and current public ethics in favor of the masses . Hamilton’s dream of hindering extraneous legislative rules has expanded to allow for changes in the personal philosophies of the nation as it advances towards a more modernistic view of the world . The concept solidified in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and allowed the Justices to reform nationwide law regarding elective abortions to fit the strength of the women’s movement in Roe v. Wade . The concurrent case of School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp demonstrates how judicial review has allowed the masses the freedom of religion in their education per demand . The ability of the Supreme Court to force a reflection of the nation’s values in the legislation gives them a great strength in their battle over the other two branches, as Bush v. Gore illustrates.
In the midst of a cultural movement which advocated the individuality of women, stari decisis offered no solution to Roe v. Wade, argued Sarah Weddington, as the justices repeatedly asked her to concede . Weddington, herself, understood the rigidity of Texas abortion legislation . Roe v. Wade framed abortion as an elective medical procedure, depending on individual decision rather than medical necessity . The American woman, rebelling against her mother’s housewife status, took control of her sexuality . The Court, responding to this idea, forced the states to adopt a more permissive view of abortion . The case faced heavy contention, validating Justice Holmes’ description of the Court . The Executive office, particularly President Reagan, used the power to appoint candidates to the Court while Congress attempted to legislatively nullify Roe’s significance . Neither venue proved successful, speaking to the strength of statues enacted in continuation of the personal policies of the people .
The case School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp argued to expand the ability of the educational system to provide what Justice Black deemed a necessary quality of theological neutrality . Schempp argued that the use of the Bible as an introduction to each school day provided an exclusively Messiah based Christianity. The Court’s ruling prohibited the certain shame of a member of a religion not affiliated with Christianity in a governmental context. The Forefathers’ bifurcated intent allowed individuals to feel comfortable independently selecting and practicing a religion. The importance of this ruling lies in the fact that although much of the nation’s government is composed of members of Judeo-Christian theology, the current trend is towards more individualistic and non-European forms of religion. This ruling compelled the school districts in this and resulting cases to mirror the nation’s general philosophy of free and open religion in almost every government context.
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court inappropriately used the traditionally mass-oriented concept of judicial review to overrun mass opinion and affirm their position of power in American society. Each candidate concentrated on Florida which determined Governor Bush’s victory with less than 1% of the popular vote. The Court was asked to decide on the constitutionality of a prior state ruling. The implications of this ruling gave the Court the opportunity to declare nationally the power they held through electing a president for the masses. The popular vote representing America’s voice, granted Vice President Al Gore the victory. However, in a flawed electoral system, a man other than the choice of most Americans garnered the electoral votes. This expression of personal preference as well as clues given by PIPA data should have prohibited the action of the Court. The Supreme Court overruled the masses’ opinion in a case not pertaining to personal ethics conflicting with antique statues.
I viewed the Supreme Court as an impregnable institution with both honor and rigidity. Now I see the Supreme Court as a more flexible institution which uses judicial review as a means to serve the American people. I do believe that in the same manner that the Supreme Court serves to amend legislation to prevent a hyper-conservative movement, the Court does a disservice to another group of individuals who do not feel that the Court’s decisions accurately reflect their philosophical standings. I feel that the Court has given me certain rights and privileges which I did not ask for nor desire. But it seems fitting that I do not feel represented by a group of individuals who, from the first moment, were designed by men such as Hamilton to live above the people. God bless America.